Thursday, August 02, 2012

Chick-fil-A remarks get a brushback pitch on ‘Hardball’

A Chicago alderman appeared on the MSNBC political talk show “Hardball” Wednesday afternoon to make a perfectly reasonable point about the Chick-fil-A controversy.

“It’s not whether a CEO believes or says certain things,” said the alderman. “It’s whether that CEO’s actions translate into their policies.”

Exactly! Critics on the left as well as on the right made the same argument in response to First Ward Ald. Proco “Joe” Moreno’s stated reasons for blocking the fast-food chain’s attempt to open a new store on Elston Avenue.

In a July 26 Tribune op-ed, Moreno cited the “bigoted, homophobic comments by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who recently came out against same-sex marriage,” added that there are consequences for “statements and beliefs” and declared, “because of [Cathy’s] ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.”

Moreno wrote that his concerns were also based on Chick-fil-A’s financial support of “anti-gay groups,” and added: “My belief in equality is resolute, and if I were to take the easy way out and turn a blind eye to his remarks, I would be turning my back on the principles I stand for.”

It was 57 varieties of stupid.

Unconstitutional. Feckless. Inflammatory. These and other comments by Chick-fil-A foes fed the victim complex of social conservatives coast to coast, allowed them to bleat preposterously about religious persecution and inspired an impressive backlash of support from opponents of gay rights.

The Chicago alderman who appeared on “Hardball” underscored how wrong Moreno was. This lawmaker said he would never insist “that a CEO has to believe something or state something that I believe in” to get a building permit. “Of course not,” he said. “I would protect that even if I disagreed with him.”

He said the only proper concern of government when it comes to positions on issues is whether a business follows state anti-discrimination laws in hiring employees and serving customers.

Again, exactly!So who was this right-thinking alderman?

Why, none other than Joe Moreno – or, more accurately, Moreno 2.0 – who insisted to “Hardball” host Chris Matthews that he wasn’t backing down while, in nearly the same breath, backing down.

“I have never said anything about beliefs,” he said, evidently forgetting that his own Tribune essay lectured us that beliefs have consequences.

All he is saying to Chick-fil-A, Moreno 2.0 added, is “clarify your anti-discriminatory policies….and we can move forward.”That should be easy. Chick-fil-A has already issued statements saying it follows the law and has a corporate policy against discrimination.

-----

Here’s more of what Moreno wrote in a recent Tribune op-ed, with the most problematic words highlighted in red:

Initially, I had some traffic concerns with their plan. But then I heard the bigoted, homophobic comments by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who recently came out against same-sex marriage.

There are consequences for one's actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man's ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.

I've been in discussions with the company for the past nine months. Every time we met, I brought up my concerns that the company supported a homophobic agenda. My concerns were based on financial contributions made by WinShape Foundation, Chick-fil-A's charitable endeavor, to anti-gay groups. ….

Obviously, Cathy has the right to believe, say and give money to whatever cause he wants. But my belief in equality is resolute, and if I were to take the easy way out and turn a blind eye to his remarks, I would be turning my back on the principles I stand for.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Gay Mafia really took it on the chin with this issue. The CFA's here in the People's Republic of Austin were packed yesterday. People who normally sympathize with gays, such as myself, have become dismayed with the knee-jerk gay tendency to label any critic either bigoted or homophobic. People have become tired of hearing it, and the whole CFA affair gave them a way of striking back.

I do not understand the Tribune's coverage of yesterday's Chick fil A activities. People all over the Chicago area gave Mayor Emanual and Alderman Moreno a collective middle finger and - unless I missed it- the Tribune gives us a wire service story or two? Most people I saw interviewed on local news last night voiced 1st ammendment concerns, not gay marriage support. But putting the whole controversy aside, this was a big local story that the Trib appeared not to cover locally....

HOWEVER, those that went to CFA yesterday claiming it was for 1st amendment/freedom of speech are full of more bologna than Morono. Here's my proof:

Suppose the local Black Panther chapter wanted to open a restaurant and an alderman decided to step in and block it because he didn't like their message. Now, how many of the people that attended CFA yesterday would ALSO show up at the new Black Panther restaurant to show their support of 'free speech'?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Yesterday's BIGOTS showed up only because the message was one they supported, not because they're some great champions of freedom. Because to hell with the freedoms of homosexuals to enjoy the same rights and privileges that they do!

Eric (in regard to roadgeek) - this is the second time he's used the phrase "Gay Mafia". This is allowed, why?

BrianE - you're exactly right. For Cathy supporters/Moreno detractors (with few exceptions like Eric and some of the other regulars) the issue has nothing to do with the actual principle of freedom of speech. It has to do with the "principle" that they agree with Cathy, so he has a right to freedom of speech. The Black Panthers, not so much.

One definition of "mafia" I've found is "any exclusive or dominating group." It seems roadgeek used the word "mafia" in this context. Based upon what he's been saying, it appears to be an appropriate modifier to bolster his argument.

Beth - can you answer BrianE's question? In the hypothetical situation of the Black Panthers being denied the right to open a restaurant, whose side would you be on? Would you turn out to a protest in favor of the Panthers?

johnnyruss - first, I don't use the term "teabagger", but second, it's a term the Tea Partiers themselves initially used, until they learned what it referred to.

phocion - I hardly think that's what roadgeek means by the term. I also hardly think that you think so.

It's should be obvious to all that the Corporation Counsel had a private sitdown with Emanuel & told how much money the city would have to shell out in legal bills & pay out damages to Chick-Fil-A.
Then Emanuel had another sitdown with Moreno & explained the facts of life to him & probably reamed him out for starting this mess.
And since Moreno's denial would be a definite 1st Amendment violation, could we the citizens of Chicago sue him personally to recover any legal bills because he violated his oath of office?
The same goes for suing that idiot 2nd Ward alderman Fioretti for costing the city $250,000 in legal bills in the Felony Franks case!

Again, its not a first amendment issue. Chickfila funds radical hate groups that lobby to dehumanize homosexuals and keep fellow Americans as second class citizens.

Alderman did not want it, practiced that executive decision. I for one agree with it. But its not some NEW AGE LIBERALISM, this has always been in the alderman's power and as an ELECTED OFFICIAL, he in more ways the one, represents his ward and their wishes. Do you honestly think we want that trashy ass place right next to our Vienna Weiner factory? C'mon!

"As a gay man, I’m disheartened by statements like Mr. Cathy’s, with their limited conception of what it means to be a family. “Family” is a treasured — I’ll say it, sacred — word in the gay community. Through decades of modern-day oppression, gay men and lesbians have created families against all odds. Love, loyalty, commitment, mutual support: these things are family. They are scarce virtues that our society should do everything in its power to foster.

But that’s my opinion. And a society that truly believes in individual freedom will respect Mr. Cathy’s right to his views. Those who disagree with him are free to boycott Chick-fil-A in protest. But if our elected officials run Chick-fil-A out of town, they are effectively voting for all of us, regardless of our respective beliefs, and eliminating our individual freedoms. "

You are amazing, BrianE. I had no idea you were a mind/soul reader as well as a predictor of the future. Quite talented.

Really, you can read what's in the minds and hearts of everyone who went to CFA yesterday? You can tell what people would do with a fictional Black Panther restaurant? Really, please tell me what number I'm thinking right now, and what the weather tomorrow will be. Better yet, just give us the lottery numbers.

You and others need to learn about the idea of a backlash. One can be for gay marriage and against Mr. Moreno's actions; that would describe Eric and most of the posters' views here. I had no intention of ever going to CFA, but with all this excessive piling on, I actually thought about going there for 30 seconds. Not because of gay marriage, but because I'm against zoning decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with zoning regulations.

By the way, calling someone a bigot is the easiest thing in the world and takes zero courage, especially when its none anonymously on some internet comment forum.

Dienne, I find the Black Panther analogy not applicable, because Black Panthers don't currently run restaurants. Chi-fil-A does.

I guess, giving this some more thought, that while I'm not going to give my money to CFA because they corporately give money to causes with which I disagree. My oldest daughter is trying to sort out the "corporate aspects" as well -- she disagrees with CFA so won't eat there. We told her Hobby Lobby also was closed on Sundays (though we have no clue as to their corporate giving or any kind of positions of the management and owners). She was wondering if she'd have to scratch them off the list as well.

I have a question for COS-ers and for Eric as well. Do you have, among your circle of friends, people who are for civil unions, perhaps, but not gay marriage? Any relatives? Do you refuse to speak to them? Their position is held by probably the majority of Americans, though it's changing. In just about every state that gay marriage has come up for a vote, hasn't it been voted down? As quotidian notes, Obama held that position until just a few months ago. I think quotidian is right -- perhaps many people simply got fed up with the sanctimony, with being told they're wrong -- and they bought a chicken sandwich.

@Tom - way to add nothing to the conversation - a worthy post indeed. I stand exactly as you described - for gay marriage, against Moreno (name calling removed) , I'll re-iterate that my post had to do with those that attended CFA with the notion that they were defending 'free speech', when in fact they're full of BS. That was all.

ZORN NOTE -- I'm going to try to do a little better at removing the name-calling from these posts, as I'm getting compliaints via email that civility seems to be in decline.

"I saw a couple FB comments today from people who ARE gay and who stood in line yesterday to eat at Chic-fil-A."

Good to know that a couple FB accounts have taken over the role of spokesperson for the gay community.

For the record, I've heard the term "Gay Mafia" used by member of the gay community as a statement empowerment. Like many terms the offensiveness depends on the intent of the user, not the term itself.

Finally, whether you visited CFA yesterday or are boycotting them, you are exercising your freedom of speech. Neither of these acts are an attempt to infringe on someone else's freedom. People on both sides seem to get this wrong.

Honest question for you: From a government standpoint what is the difference between a civil union and a marriage. Does/should one have any rights that the other doesn't? Isn't it a flawed "separate, but equal" position?

The reason I ask is because the distinction seems un-necessary at best and absurd at worst from a legal standpoint.

Why can't everyone just get a "civil union" certificate from the gov't and, if they are so inclined, then get married in their church.

ZORN REPLY -- The answer, near as I can tell, is that society must have a separate, extra-honored term -- legal institution- for all relationships that closely emulate the only possible relationship that can biologically produce a child -- a male/female union. It is immaterial if one or both partners in this union are capable of reproduction or interested in any way in reproduction, only that they have the genitals that in theory could have been part of a reproductive act. But we must have a separate institution to remind one and all of the significance of potentiality of this biological act, and not to do so degrades such unions, minimizes their importance and threatens not only existing unions but also the future of mankind itself.
I, too, however, find it odd that the law trafficks in sacramental legitimacy. The law doesn't say who can and can't get baptized or confirmed....why should is say who can and can't get married?
But oh well.

I only care about this brouhaha from a freedom of speech and personal libery viewpoint...even bigots are entitled to voice their opinions, and anyone who has ever put a bill in most church collection plates has funded an anti-gay organization.

What I'd like to see is Moreno charged for contributing to the death of CFA's spokesperson who, in my opinion, was willfully blindsided by the vitroil spewed by these people.

--@Beth:
As far as government recognition goes, I'm against marriage & for civil unions only.
I written it before & here I am writing it again: Every European country I can think of only recognizes civil unions. They may call it "marriage" but any couple that chooses to "marry", goes to some version of a civil clerk's office & fills out the papers. When the papers have been stamped as accepted, they're a legally bound couple, no matter what the coupling is called.
If they choose to have a religious marriage ceremony, they are free to do so after the civil office. Occasionally, some couples do the religious ceremony first & then the civil on.

Marriage is hopelessly bound up with religion & government in this country isn't supposed to involve itself in religion!

Why are gays and democrat politicians so anti-American. People have every right to be against gay marriage. 78% of blacks are against it, virtually every practicing Muslim is against it, 98% of the clergy is against it and 50% of Chicagoans are against it. it seems to me that Moreno is the bigot.

ZORN REPLY -- You are an ignorant troll, Leslie, and you'r banned . WHy? Because you posted this nonsense before and I corrected you with facts -- see below--and you have h audacity to bring th same nonsens back. Good bye!

Since Mr. Obama declared his support for gay marriage, however, and similar pronouncements by the N.A.A.C.P, Jay-Z and Colin Powell, a handful of polls suggest that opinions in the African-American community are shifting.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted May 17-20 found 59 percent of African-Americans in favor of same-sex marriage.
A Public Policy Polling survey in North Carolina, taken just after the state approved Amendment One, which prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions, found that black support for legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions had increased 11 percentage points to 55 percent in favor and 39 percent against. A poll by the same group taken before Mr. Obama’s announcement — and before the voting in North Carolina — showed 44 percent of black respondents in favor of same-sex marriage or civil unions and 51 percent against.<<<

Chick Fil A most certainly is a straight forward first amendment issue.For those who refuse or can't understand this you have little comprehension of the first amendment and absolutely no grasp on the role of government and what is permissible in regulating business.Again its nice to see the extrapolation of reading peoples minds and attitudes when throwing out what ifs when outlining different scenarios... If the New Black Panthers opened up a restaurant fine with me.They might have a slight problem with compliance I think the southern Poverty Law Center classifies them as a violent separatist group that is virulently anti -Semitic and preaches violence against whites. They should do really well. As for the term Tea Bagger I believe Kip drops it now and again.

Yes, we're extremely anti-American. Just like those jerks, Lincoln and MLK Jr. Or did your history books tell you African-American rights were overwhelming popular.

Richard,

Reread the posts above before you imply people are stupid. There's only one that supports Moreno. Everyone else is just questioning the true motivation of the CFA supporter, political or principled. Since Moreno's threat is empty (and he's already backing away from it), I'd say most are motivated by politics.

[[--@Beth:
As far as government recognition goes, I'm against marriage & for civil unions only.
I written it before & here I am writing it again: Every European country I can think of only recognizes civil unions. They may call it "marriage" but any couple that chooses to "marry", goes to some version of a civil clerk's office & fills out the papers. When the papers have been stamped as accepted, they're a legally bound couple, no matter what the coupling is called.
If they choose to have a religious marriage ceremony, they are free to do so after the civil office. Occasionally, some couples do the religious ceremony first & then the civil on.

Marriage is hopelessly bound up with religion & government in this country isn't supposed to involve itself in religion!]]

I love this blog -- I learn something new about the people (regulars) who write here, frequently. In this case, Garry, I'm asking (and not to be critical in the slightest -- I'm asking only for clarification) -- I understand your distinction between civil union and marriage. And I understand your bringing up the European standards, and I like your distinctions. But what do you personally think? Are you for gay "marriage" if the government weren't involved? It is only the extra layers you object to or something different? Sometimes the waters are murky...

@Chris H: Point taken That was not my intent..But tha'ts what this issue is. To say most who support Chick Fil A are doing so for political reasons maybe, but I can definitely say Rahm, Moreno, and Memino were pandering and it back fired spectacularly. On the flip side asking those who support Chick Fil A's right to free speech if they would support a Black Panther Restaurant carries the implication that " we still now you are a bigot. you are just hiding it"

@Beth:
To quote Mrs Campbell "I don't care what those dear people do as long as they don't do it in the streets & frighten the horses"!

[She was a British actress of the 1890s & that's how she is usually mentioned, just Mrs. Campbell. Occasionally Mrs. Patrick Campbell, but I looked her up & her first name was Beatrice. She also was speaking about gay men. I think this statement is from when Oscar Wilde was arrested for his being gay.]

I'm old enough to remember when couples first started to publicly live together & never understood the outrage.
I'm pretty much a don't do anything that has an effect on me or anyone else that isn't part of what you're doing & I don't care what you do.
Gay marriage has no effect on me whatsoever!
Just think of all the florists, caterers, bakers, banquet halls that will have more business & all the people that will get work from gay weddings.
Think also of the lawyers that will get more money when they divorce!

Well, after a couple of days, I'd have to say that the Tolerant Liberals are a lot nastier than the Bigoted Homophobes, at least on this site.

Name-calling by the BHs:
...Gay Mafia (capitalized for emphasis)
...anti-American
...Moreno is the bigot

A good effort, but can't match the name-calling by the TLs:
...BIGOTS (all-caps; must mean double-bad bigots)
...stupidity and hypocrisy (attributed to all who ate at CFA yesterday)
...radical hate groups (undefined)
...trashy ass place
...full of BS

I'm off to spend the day determining if my company violates any Chicago Values.

As much as I disagree with the statements made by Chick-Fil-A, not to mention the groups that they help to fund, I still think that the comments made by the alderman and mayor were incredibly foolish. Unless they are actually practicing discrimination in the running of their business, there's no good reason to deny them permission to open a restaurant.

That said...I think it's disingenuous for Chick-Fil-A supporters to claim that they are ONLY standing in long lines for a chicken sandwich because of a freedom of speech issue. Every single post that, I, personally, have seen on Facebook in support of CFA has come from people that I know to ascribe to a conservation Christian values system that opposes gay marriage. Accepting that this is merely anecdotal evidence, and that correlation does not equal causation, I still don't think that the CFA supporters would be so fired up if the moral shoe was on the other foot. If The Big Gay Ice Cream Truck (which is a real thing) was denied an operations permit for Chicago because of their political stance, would the majority of these people care?

@Chris H:This issue has undoubtedly become heavily politicized.For me and I can only speak for myself if the shoe were on the other foot I would be just as strenuous in my defense of the right for free speech regardless of the issue. I would like to think there are more people like Garry and yourself and others on this and other threads who understand the gravity of what these politicians have said. I totally agree with Garry's position on civil unions and marriage . Those who hold the position of that the motives of the CFA supporters are suspect, I'll simply ask the question so what? See Carrie's claims above. It is superfluous to argument at hand. The argument is not that they are hypocrites, that they support hate. The argument is not about them, the argument is not about gay marriage.The argument is where does the state have the right to demand a political litmus test? Where does the state have the right to deny a person,a business or a product that operates within the law, not to be welcome into the community, because it does not meet the state's view's of community values. Everyone should have been outraged at such a public trashing and total disregard of the first amendment. If some one doesn't want to support Chick Fil A fine. . There should have been more people in front of Moreno's office demanding he explain the first amendment and his oath of office. That's the pity.

@Richard monahan:
Thank you.
To go further, Farrakhan & his Muslim group have opened at least one restaurant & one bakery in Chicago. I don't know if they're still operating.
I'll never go there because he's a vicious anti-Semite, but I also won't try to keep him from running his business, no matter how much I detest him & his beliefs!
Plus I think it's hysterically ironic that most of the doctors that have treated him for cancer & kept his wretched life going the last few years are Jewish!

No First Amendment rights were suppressed or harmed here folks for anyone from either side of this Fast-Food-Chicken-A-Palooza debate. The chicken sandwich CEO made a very public proclamation about his and his company's values that some deem Christian religious based bigotry. Liberal big city politicos stepped right up to the other side of the line drawn in the proverbial sand by the chicken sandwich CEO, pounded their chests and threw red meat to their ravenously hungry anti-poultry constituent base when they lobbed comments and threats like "you don't share our values", "you're not welcome here" and the more pointed, "I will block your building permit". Of course, some might consider these comments inappropriate, stupid, irresponsible and reckless but this is pure political theater. No one actually stated that the chicken sandwich CEO couldn't say or believe what he said or believes and no one to my knowledge has actually blocked any fast food chicken joint from being built. Lots of talk and lots of bluster but no free speech violations. Furthermore, every politician knows, including Alderman Moreno and Mayor Emanuel that deciding building permits based on not agreeing with the applicant's values and religious beliefs would not fly in a court of law. I have yet to read any comments supporting the First Amendment rights of elected officials so let me be the first say I support a politician's right to state their beliefs, whether I agree with them or not. Theoretically, we elect said officials to speak and act on our behalf on all things within the region we live so in that sense they are representing our values. Do they get it right every time and please every supporter who voted for them and those who didn't? A resounding "no" but hopefully they reflect the values of the majority of voters most of the time or at least on the most critically important issues. If one disagrees with a politician, wouldn't the prudent approach be to contact them and let them know you disapprove rather than stewing over it or the most radical form of disapproval would be to simply not vote for them in the next election.

Lost in this debate is what some might argue is the general lack of good business sense demonstrated when a CEO makes such a public proclamation about a very polarizing issue which has the potential to alienate a sizable chunk of his potential customer base, especially in mostly progressive and liberal large American cities. Especially puzzling is why this anti gay marriage rant would be made when the fast food chicken joint is trying to expand in these large American bastions of progressive, liberal leanings. Wouldn't it have been more prudent to express his religious and political views among close friends, family and within his parish? My only conclusion is that he does not want gays or gay-friendly members of society to buy his poultry, let alone cook it and sell it. Is it a coincidence the fast food chicken joint PR/marketing head just keeled over with a heart attack when this controversy became so public? Either that or perhaps he was eating too frequently at his own restaurants. The moral of this story is to keep one's religious and political beliefs as private and personal when operating a business with a national presence and to understand and accept diversity throughout this country, unless, of course, one received their business degree from the U of Boneheadedness. This chicken joints brand will forever be tainted in my mind and I, for one, would never cross the road to eat there. Score one for Rahmbo!

Mr Zorn- Finally, thank you, thank you, thank you for the opportunity to comment on something on the Tribune website without having to post through any god awful social media site (which is pure laziness on the Trib's part and has resulted in my reading the online Trib very infrequently).

Dear Eric, I am wondering how you would have come down on the TipsyCake controversy in Wicker Park last February. The owner moved her bakery from Humboldt Park to Wicker Park after having a bullet come through her window, and jokingly named one of her pastries "Humboldt Crack." She told the story on local television, and found herself vilified by the local press, and picketed by local Latino community groups who found her comments insulting. I don't recall you or Mary Mitchell or any of the other journalists who keep coming out in support of Dan Cathy defending her right to free speech. So Eric, what's the difference? Would you defend her too, or only millionaires who actually fund hate groups with their profits? Here's a link to the original story. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/tipsycake-chicago-bakery-_n_1299859.html

ZORN REPLY--First I've heard of the TipsyCake controversy and it sounds like the critics were overreacting weenies. My defense of Cathy is a defense of his right to open up a business even though many of us disagree strongly with his views on gay rights, not a suggestion that he be immune from criticism.

--Sorry, one more point I forget to mention in my lengthy post above and that is with respect to free speech in our great country. While it is indeed a wonderful freedom to be able to express oneself freely in America and to freely disagree with someone's beliefs and expressed opinions, the protected right to free speech is frequently not pretty when practiced since opinions and beliefs are rarely universally accepted. With all speech comes the possibility of unintended consequences and condemnation. While we are all guilty at times of speaking before thinking, ideally the brain should be engaged at all times before vocalizing thought. Otherwise, we could end up paying a steep, steep price for our precious free speech.

It is the obvious, but unstated, goal of American liberals and the Democrat Party to make Secular Humanism the defacto, if not the official, religion of the United States, enforced by the full power and authority of the federal, state and local governments...irrespective of the First Amendment; and to destroy, or at least emasculate, all other religions, especially Christianity. Their apparent support for Islam, Judaism, Budhism, etc, in the name of "diversity," is, at best, transitory...motivated by the idea that strengthening these religions will weaken Christianity. If these other religions ever become a significant threat to Secular Humanism, they, too, will go on the kill list, along with Christianity.

What the liberals learned from the Chick-Fil-A incident is that they need to do a better job of hiding their agenda. But, be assured, they have not abandoned it.

Holy unchristian cow, Peter Murphy, what kind of tea party kool aid are you brewing?! Your assessment of the "obvious" liberal Democratic goals is breathtaking in its over the top outrageousness and more than a little disturbing in its crazy, ranting tone. But that's what we libs find so endearing about regressive right wing cons who want to take America back to the stone ages (that's my assessment of the goals of American Republican party). It's a quaint notion. As a Christian, liberal Democrat living in the present (yeah, there are millions of us around) I believe the US Constitution is the law in this country, not the bible or the Koran, the Torah or even the latest L. Ron Hubbard book. Furthermore, a very clear delineation between church and state is necessary for our democracy to flourish which is more or less stated in the US Constitution. You can practice Scientology or not believe in any religion or God for all I care and it doesn't make you a better or worse human being or American. All in all, I support your right to rant all the crazy, twisted thoughts churning in your head about secret liberal Democratic agendas and conspiracies. You left out the one of the most popular liberal evil plots and that is the gay agenda to convert as many children to homosexuality as the homosexuals can seduce. Why do you think public schools are hiring so many gay teachers? The body snatching, brainwashing is only just getting started... and you could be next.

It's funny how people come out from the shadows of their own sins to pass judgement on others. When pass judgement in itself is a sin! What you heterosexual liers, adulterers, your ill thoughts, and etc! Every day you are alive on this earth you will fall short of the word of God! Simple things like Mr. Cathy spreading hate in the name of Jesus. A rich man who would rather give loads of money to hate groups, than use that same money to feed and clothed the homeless, but the God book does say, "it will be harder for a rich man to enter heaven, than that of a poor man." This is not about the first amendment, this not about saving america and I laugh at the very though of such assumtions; rather, this is about hate and persecution. God doesn't force himself upon any of us, so what make other unworthy men like Mr. Cathy and supporters feel as they should do so? Only God as a heaven or hell to place someone in, so stop trying to get other people houses in order wjen yours is unkept. Read the bible for yourself abd gain the truest enlightenment there is!

"Lost in this debate is what some might argue is the general lack of good business sense demonstrated when a CEO makes such a public proclamation about a very polarizing issue which has the potential to alienate a sizable chunk of his potential customer base, especially in mostly progressive and liberal large American cities. ..."

Very good point, Jeff, and

"Mr Zorn- Finally, thank you, thank you, thank you for the opportunity to comment on something on the Tribune website without having to post through any god awful social media site (which is pure laziness on the Trib's part and has resulted in my reading the online Trib very infrequently)."

Amen, amen, amen!

I suppose I should thank you too, Peter Murphy, because it's late, and when I read

"It is the obvious, but unstated, goal of American liberals and the Democrat Party ..."

A late entry given the "lively" debate thus far, but believed to be necessary;

When our elected officials begin legislating decisions that are not openly debated and passed by consensus, then our elected officials have appointed themselves to be judge, jury and executioner and our elected officials are in direct violation of the oath of office that they swore upon entering into service.

ZORN NOTE -- I'm going to try to do a little better at removing the name-calling from these posts, as I'm getting compliaints via email that civility seems to be in decline.

ZORN REPLY -- You are an ignorant troll, Leslie, and you'r banned . WHy? Because you posted this nonsense before and I corrected you with facts -- see below--and you have h audacity to bring th same nonsens back. Good bye!

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.